Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3533 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

support or continues to support the reconciliation process and the continuing advancing of this process will be monitored, not just by the opposition of the Assembly but certainly by the people of the ACT.

The Road Map for Reconciliation sets out the further steps that are to be taken on the road towards reconciliation, a road we still travel, but the ACT government's commitment is described in the words "commitments that are relevant to a number of the council's recommendations". That is not really an all-embracing or particularly enthusiastic description of the level of commitment this government is making to the Road Map for Reconciliation. It is a very guarded commitment. One must ask the question: to which recommendations is there perhaps no commitment? At some time the Chief Minister might be able to expand on whether or not there are some recommendations to which there is no commitment and whether or not the description "commitments that are relevant to a number of the council's recommendations" was meant to specifically exclude. If it was not, then it is unfortunate language and is a matter I would like the government to explain further.

I reiterate that in the ACT, through the Assembly, significant steps towards reconciliation have been made. There is much more that could be done. There still needs to be a debate about the extent to which all communities around Australia might continue their focus on mandatory sentencing laws in some parts of the nation. There is a range of issues in relation to which we as communities should not take a backwards step or blink. We should maintain pressure in relation to every aspect of governance, laws or community activity that inhibits full reconciliation and the opportunity for indigenous people to shed forever the disadvantage which has been a feature of their lives for the last 200 years.

MS TUCKER 4.10): I will speak only briefly. Otherwise, I would only be repeating a lot of what Mr Stanhope said. I endorse what he said. While I was listening to Mr Humphries and Mr Stanhope I was looking at the flags in the chamber and thinking that we have come quite a long way. When I first suggested to the Assembly that we should have flags here to represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people it was then very controversial. I can remember being advised by one member that it would be a divisive thing that should not be done. I took that advice initially because I was new here and thought that person probably knew much more than I did. But I subsequently decided to persist with my suggestion, and by the beginning of this Assembly the flags were standing in this chamber. I cannot imagine anybody saying now that that is a divisive thing to do in this country.

In the few short years I have been involved in political debate we have come to the situation where both major parties and all members of the crossbench are behind the need for reconciliation and understand that it is one of the major challenges for this country.

Mr Humphries, in his closing remarks, said:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .